PDA

View Full Version : The Supreme Court really jumped the shark in 2005




Warlord
05-18-2013, 04:23 AM
I was reading the Gonzales v. Raich case before about a medicinal marijuana patient in CA taking a case to the Supreme court and Scalia changed his position and decided that a plant that had never crossed state lines could be regulated under the commerce clause and so upholding the Federal prohibition on marijuana.

This is interesting because it sent out the message that the court could care less about restrictions on the commerce clause or the 10th amendment and opened the door to the Democrats ramming through Obamacare and no doubt the internet sales tax will be ruled constitutional on the same grounds.

So much for originalism Justice Scalia. In 2005 he opened the door to a massive expansion of government authority and power which of course they're going to take.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

This just highlights how stupid the Supreme's are and how it's important that the states fight back. Scalia is now a despot who believes the Feds can do what they like even if products don't cross state lines. It's interesting how he found a way to rule against the mandate in Obamacare but uphold the trampling of the 10th with a distorted interpretation of the commerce clause.

He has now drawn the battle lines as WA and CO have told him "get bent" and voted to nullify the Federal laws he holds in such high regard. In addition KS and MO have just voted to nullify the Federal gun control laws which Scalia from his 2005 opinion agrees they can do even if he claims to believe in the 2nd amendment.

Chester Copperpot
05-18-2013, 04:39 AM
man SCOTUS jumped that shark back in the 1930s when they ruled that a farmer growing grain on his own land for use as food for his farm animals was interfering in interstate commerce by NOT SELLING his grain....

Warlord
05-18-2013, 04:48 AM
man SCOTUS jumped that shark back in the 1930s when they ruled that a farmer growing grain on his own land for use as food for his farm animals was interfering in interstate commerce by NOT SELLING his grain....

That decision is similar in stupidity to this one.

tangent4ronpaul
05-18-2013, 04:55 AM
man SCOTUS jumped that shark back in the 1930s when they ruled that a farmer growing grain on his own land for use as food for his farm animals was interfering in interstate commerce by NOT SELLING his grain....

I believe it was by not buying, but good point.

Likewise, any bit of data on the Internet has entered interstate commerce, even if it never crossed state lines.

-t